On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:49:54 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:30:45 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:46:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:08:49 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 2 Sep 2004 04:43:13 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price.

Exactly so! Cheating, in other words.

MM


Oh good grief.

Why don't you just give your house away.? Then you'll be able to
sleep with a clear conscience.

Here is the dictionary meaning of cheat, cheating, etc:

1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging
them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.

Tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll try to explain it.

I understand all of these perfectly, but no cheating is taking place.
There is nothing wrong with a vendor legally maximising his sale price
by inviting multiple bidders. The deal isn't closed until the
paperwork is signed so how can cheating have happened.?

The situation we were discussing was where a buyer had put in an
offer, which I had accepted, having assured myself *as far as
possible* that the buyer was genuine, and then reneging on the deal in
favour of a higher offer. That is cheating in my book. What is *not*
cheating is when you tell your would-be buyer, i.e. prior to accepting
his offer, that you have had another offer and therefore cannot yet
accept his offer until you have had time to check the genuineness of
both offers. But I assert that once you have committed to one of them,
then you are morally obliged to follow it through. If not, a handshake
is worth nothing today.

MM